"Virginia Democrats won an election. Gun owners are talking civil war"

The number of injured included those who were not shot. Those who were hit by shrapnel, broken glass, or otherwise trampled by those trying to escape were also counted as being injured in the incident.

Just as it is disingenuous to claim any semi-automatic firearm is capable of killing hundreds of individuals in a single incident, when such has never happened in the entirety of the existence of semi-automatic firearms.

Then explain why no military on the planet makes use of semi-automatic rifles. Then explain how semi-automatic firearms can be considered as weapons of war, when the united states federal government has admitted they do not constitute weapons of war.

 

People who make claims of "gee, only 58 people died"!?

This is so sick. Obviously so many of the don't think this don't go and see what happened to so any the people who survived!

Arms, hands, fingers, legs, feet, gone or useless or maimed to little! The permanent or long term destruction of human is horrible! Common problems can be poop bags instead of the areas for elimination like intestines and colons. Food is a horrible problems and pain, or just get to have feed down you nose or belly. Heart problems, kidneys destroyed, every other part of the abdomin.

Blinded, no way to work or run, no strength, shortened life, pain and misery.

"disingenuous"? People who think this kind of garbage need to work in rehab and maintenance of damaged bodies and deal with the losses of the damaged people!

Unbelievable to just trivialize the lives that can live in hell that guns cause every frickening day!

 

which happened as a direct result of the weapons being fired. Can't do that with handguns and revolvers.

The point is that it has proven that at least 500 people can be shot in 15 minutes and people who are shot can die.

They are deadlier than the guns used in the civil war and any war pre WWI.

 

Prove such to be the case.

The las Vegas incident cannot be counted as anything except an outlier. Such results cannot be achieved in circumstances outside of such, such as a single individual with a single firearm and who is at ground level with the intended victims, regardless of how much ammunition they may possess.

Just as individuals can die if they are struck by motor vehicles.

The obvious question of "so what?" must be asked with regard to the above. What ultimate, meaningful difference does such actually make?

Is it going to be argued on the part of yourself that firearms technology should have never been allowed to advance beyond the civil war era? Is it going to be claimed the second amendment only applies to muskets, despite the united state supreme court ruling constitutional protections do not work that way?

 

A "hell" that is caused by the illegal use of firearms, by those who have no regard for the well being of others. Not a legitimate reason for going after legal firearms ownership in retaliation, or otherwise believing that firearm-related restrictions will provide a relief for those who will be victimized.

Shall we draw parallels with the "hell" caused by the use of illicit narcotic substances, despite such substances being prohibited at the federal and state level, with no legal avenues existing for their acquisition?

 

Target shooting, 3 gun competition shooting, predator and feral hog hunting, self defense.

 

because it's not a production rifle, it was a prototype that the M16 was made from. The AR15 is not suited for, intended for or used for military purposes. No military on earth uses one.

 

everyone should be able to own firearms in a free society.

which one of the guns did he use to kill hundreds of people, as you claimed was proven? There weren't a hundred casualties

 

Those guns can't use belts, thus limiting the amount of ammo.

Over 100 people were shot in the nightclub shooting. the year prior to vegas.

Cars serve a purpose though and are much harder to obtain a license for than a gun. But I would be completely cool with making a gun license that required gun school, tests, a gun accuracy course and learning all the gun laws, then requiring gun insurance, registration with the government, an identification code, and a key needed to use it.

Civilians should not have access to guns that can use belts. simple, because they can use unlimited amounts of ammo with no reload.

Most of the westren nations are freer than the US and have strict gun control or total gun bans (UK/Norway).

According to the definition there were more than 100 in two different shootings

"a person killed or injured in a war or accident." replace accident with incident and it holds true.

 

And yet magazines exist for handguns that are capable of holding thirty or more rounds of ammunition.

And in that incident, the killer suffered a malfunction that rendered the firearm useless for an extended period of time. A malfunction that required partial disassembly of the firearm, and consulting a video on his phone. And yet despite this long lull, the people inside did absolutely nothing but continue to hide and wait to be slaughtered. Why is that?

Just as firearms also serve a purpose.

Have the restrictions and regulations associated with motor vehicles served to put an end to the criminal misuse of motor vehicles? Have they served to reduce the number of motor vehicle-related homicides committed annually in the united states?

Again, the obvious question of "so what?" must be asked with regard to the above. What ultimate, meaningful difference, does such actually make? Beyond that matter, what of firearms that do not use ammunition belts but rather detachable magazines? Are those allowable or do the public have no reason to have access to them either?

And yet they are subject to far more successful terrorist attacks than the united states. Explain why that is. Why do nations with strict firearm-related restrictions, such as the nation of France, play host to so many successful terrorist attacks, while the united states do not?

Meaning intellectual dishonesty should be embraced whenever it is convenient.

 

no they aren't.

no where weren't.

yes, if you make up your own definition you could certainly be correct. but alas, you don't get to make your own definition up, so you are wrong.

 

Why would it only be a casualty if it was an accident?

 

Much has been said about the lethality of the AR-15 and similar firearms however those who support banning them are apparently unaware that a determined mass killer can and will resort to using any number of other inanimate objects as weapons that are at least as deadly if not deadlier.

For example, one mass killer was successful in killing 87 people(1) with only $1.00 worth of gasoline at a NY city nightclub in a tragic incident that exceeded any death count caused by an AR-15 or related semi-automatic rifle.

My point is simply that there are enough chemicals, biological weapons and other inanimate objects that can be turned into lethal weapons so that a ban on semi automatic rifles would accomplish nothing in the way of deterring a determined mass murderer.



"Happy Land fire"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Land_fire

EXCERPT "González went to an Amoco gas station, then returned to the establishment with a plastic container with $1 worth of gasoline.[2][4] He spread the fuel at the base of a staircase, the only access into the club, and then ignited the gasoline.[5]

Eighty-seven people died in the resulting fire."CONTINUED

 

You will not find Mags that hold hundreds of bullets but you can get belts that hold hundreds or even thousands of rounds.

If people were shooting in a dark area how would anyone know who was the killer and who was trying to stop them?

Yes, accidents have steadily declined and homicides by vehicle are almost non existent because the multiple legal layers prevent easy access. The roads are generally safe for everyone because it works, if killers were running rampant in cars, the roads would be in chaos.

It requires a pause and when seconds count those pauses can result in less deaths.

The reason is that it is easier to get into Europe than north America, hence why canada has not suffered several attacks.

It is dishonest to pretend that someones life just goes back to normal after being shot.

 

because that's what the definition is

 

Burned in Effigy. Close enough.

 

that was not nearly enough to take the second amendment, if you look at the civil war the number of casualties pales in comparison.

Virginia is a confederate state, they will not give up freedom to the union states for jobs at Amazon.

https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/civil-war-casualties

 

Then show them. Show that such actually exists in more than just abstract concepts of thought.

The shooting stopped because the firearm malfunctioned, and the individual responsible was consulting a video to fix the malfunction. Yet the opportunity to escape was not utilized, as they continued to hide instead. Explain why that is.

How do the supposed "multiple legal layers" serve to prevent motor vehicle-related crimes from being committed? How do they prevent operation of a motor vehicle on a public right of way without a valid permit? Or operation of a motor vehicle while in an intoxicated state? Or texting while operating a motor vehicle? Or any number of other criminal activities that lead to accidents and death? How do these so-called "multiple legal layers" serve to prevent motor vehicle-related homicides from being committed, as was done in the city of Nice in the nation of France?

Then why did it not work in the Pulse nightclub incident?

Then why are their firearm-related restrictions not serving to prevent successful terror attacks from being committed?

Pray tell, exactly what is considered "normal" in this discussion? The foolish belief that tragedy cannot strike anyone at any time without warning? The belief that the existing system of society will protect people from harm and they have nothing to worry about?

 

58 killed, 413 wounded.
Were you ignorant of this, or did you choose to be wrong?

Fallacy: non seq.
An AR15 is one of the -least- effective firearms for his purpose; an ACTUAL weapon of war - like the water-cooled M1917, below - could have easily killed 1000 outright.

 

How does a firearm cause death? Injury? trauma?

 

Unsupportable nonsense.

You say this like it is significant.

 

Across the spectrum of the 99 mass shootings in Mother Jone's database, in terms of people killed, the LV shooting falls into the 9th standard deviation.

 

Yes. 300 people did nothing to protect themselves form 1 guy with a gun.

Your opinion does not support a sound argument for your unnecessary and ineffective restriction on the right to keep and bear arms.

 

Indeed.
Every mass shooting in the US, save one, could have been committed with a pump-action shotgun, with the same results.

 

Indeed. W/o restriction.
On-line, even.